Itta/174/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH& HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.A. Nos.174, 176, 184, 185 and 186 of 2015 COMMON JUDGMENT:- (per CKR, J) These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260-Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), questioning theorder dated 03.08.2012, passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bench ‘B’, Hyderabad (in short “the Tribunal”), in I.T.A.Nos.1257/Hyd/2006, 1259/Hyd/2006, 823/Hyd/2008, 1258/Hyd/2006and I.T.(ss)A.No.69/Hyd/2005 for different assessment years,raising the following similar questions of law for consideration ofthis Court: i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order ofthe CIT (A) holding that the income of “Sree RamaEnterprises” has to be considered in the hands of ‘SreeBalaji Enterprises’ and as the assessee has alreadyincluded this income in ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ thesame cannot be considered as undisclosed income inthe hands of the assessee?”case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order ofthe CIT (A) holding that the income of “Sree RamaEnterprises” has to be considered in the hands of ‘SreeBalaji Enterprises’ and as the assessee has alreadyincluded this income in ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ thesame cannot be considered as undisclosed income inthe hands of the assessee?” ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that theincome of ‘Sree Rama Enterprises’ is to be assessed inthe hands of ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ ignoring theevidence gathered during the course of search in thepremises of the assessee is perverse?”case, the Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that theincome of ‘Sree Rama Enterprises’ is to be assessed inthe hands of ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ ignoring theevidence gathered during the course of search in thepremises of the assessee is perverse?” When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the Department has fairly submitted that withregard to the same assessee, in relation to other assessment yearsin I.T.T.A. No.711 of 2014, the similar issues were considered andthe said I.T.T.A. came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this A copy of the judgment has been placed before us. Havingperused the same, we find that the questions of law raised in theseappeals are squarely covered by a judgment dated 17.12.2014,passed in I.T.T.A.No.711 of 2014. Accordingly, these Appeals are also dismissed. No order asto costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also standclosed. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:08.10.2015ssv